I think I will double
post (from Thor-thread) a comparison between Geelong and Copenhagen finishes because I think it will be an interesting talking point:
"No, my argument was that a 5% climb
leading up to a sprint and a sprint with 5% grade is two different things.
Consider the 2010 UCI world's profile as seen on
Podium Café
So the gradient from 15.1km to 15.8km is roughly 20m/700m = 2.86%
For 2011 Worlds from
official site:
Roughly about 20-25m in a bit less than 500m so close to 5%.
So my points are
1) Hushovd didn't win 2010 worlds because he is a excellent sprinter if the gradient is 5%. He won because 1a) Better sprinters were out of contention because of the 800 meter, 12% hill on the course 1b) Because he was a better sprinter than the remaining riders on a very easy (2.9%, 700m) uphill sprint.
2) Where and when did Hushovd win a uphill sprint in 5% (let's say 4-6% gradient)? Has he ever done so? Can you provide some proof of this? What arguments are there that the Copenhagen course will shed the better sprinters in the same way that the Geelong-climb did?
I feel a lot of classic's riders can win in Copenhagen - Freire, Cancellara, Gilbert as well as the sprinters. Hushovd is there but I would say there are hotter candidates."